Abstract: The material here comprises discussion
points and some reference links for a diverse group of people in Brisbane, Australia,
who fancy themselves as “gentle thinkers”, and who meet from time to time to
talk things over. All kinds of things. The topic on hand, “The Democracy
Problem”, is probably of interest to thoughtful individuals in many
latitudes, so I am putting it online as a general stimulus for some creative
discussion. Any opinions expressed in this piece are entirely my own, and may
be dissected without mercy.

a) The Australian
Context

1. Some
people in Australia
express surprise that “the future of democracy” might be raised as a
discussion topic. One remarked to me recently that there was little to
discuss. He was really saying that he hadn’t thought about it carefully. In
that he represents the Australian majority at this point in time. Yet
emerging from a brutal prison settlement in the 19th Century,
where people were routinely abused, whipped, and hung to death, Australia was
one of the first modern states to achieve universal voting for all men and
women. Something like civilized life followed. Adult Australians now are all
required to vote. This is very recent, as history goes, yet for those who
know little history,Australia’s prison camp origin is
the stuff of TV specials and could never happen to “us” nowadays. Really?

2. When
people vote in an Australian election, they typically do not see themselves
as voting to accept the rule of law. They take that for granted. In those
nations where force rules and choice is not an option, people usually
understand very well that the impartial rule of law has been lost, if it ever
existed. Australians have the luxury, for now, of voting for secondary
matters, such as the personality of leaders, and some random policies
(according to their interests) which are usually poorly understood.

3. In
Australia, most people have not suffered disastrously from misgovernment for
several generations, so many have never thought deeply about what democracy
might mean, or whether is preferable to some alternative form of rule.
Enjoying a comfortable life, they don’t know and they don’t care. They remain
unaware of any large political risks to their way of life. At this moment the
DeepState (think, for example, universal
surveillance in the name of “security”) is beginning to take from them what
they never realized they had. It is less of a conspiracy than a process (we
hope). The loss is gradual and sweetened with entertainment distractions.
Like huge numbers of people worldwide, Australians in general know little
real history, and will therefore repeat its mistakes. If tyranny again
becomes the norm, as it has been in most places over the last 5,000 years,
with the memory of goldfish they will think it was always that way.

b) Concepts
of Democracy

4. What is
the core value of having democratic choice? Democratic choice is a
psychological catalyst, and very, very powerful.

5.
Democracy in its many forms is firstly the process of re-negotiating a
contract between rulers and the ruled for the law we all live under. If we
broadly consent to the rule of law by democratic choice, then we will
probably live by it, even when we wish to challenge individual laws. When the
system of law in a community is sourced in the arbitrary force of an unchosen
ruling group, then we have tyranny.

6. When
people are required to do that which they haven’t chosen to do, or suffer for
what they haven’t chosen to suffer, they feel injustice. If they suffer badly
without having any say in it, they feel outrage. If enough of them feel this
outrage, they resist, eventually with violence. By the sheer problem of
numbers, democracy in large states is usually representative democracy (by
the election of local representatives) rather than direct participatory
democracy in daily government. Nevertheless, genuine democracy (whether
representative or direct) is a kind of open contract between the ruled and
the rulers. It requires mechanisms for frequent adjustment, not merely a
blanket vote once every few years.

7. If the
democratic contract is denied or ignored or corrupted, then people will feel
no obligation to accept its terms. They will no longer respect a supposedly
impartial rule of law, and only submit grudgingly to forcibly imposed
regulation. At every opportunity and without moral restraint, they will seek
to evade or subvert imposed regulations for private gain. Systemic corruption
is almost guaranteed in such an environment. To varying degrees, this remains
the situation in most of the world’s 200 or so nation states.

8. State
approved religions have often been used to “legalize” rule by force, and to
disparage or outlaw democratic choice. Ideologies like Communism and various
forms of Capitalism have had a similar role in some environments. Fortunately
such validation by a “higher authority” has become an increasingly hard sell
to well educated people worldwide. Nevertheless rulers in nations as diverse
as Russia, Iran, China
and the United States
still find the “higher spiritual/ideological authority” tool useful to
control parts of their constituencies.

c) Processes
of Democracy

9. What is
the effect on rulers of being elected by a democratic majority? The
effect is to give them confidence if they were elected by a large majority,
or make them cautious if they were elected by a slim majority. Where the
election was genuine, it strengthens their belief in the rule of law by
consent. Where the election was fraudulent, it strengthens their belief that
the electorate are fools to be abused.

10. What
is the effect of making voting compulsory?

a) The
effect of compulsory voting on much individual voter choice might not be
great. Many people who lacked the interest or knowledge to vote where voting
was voluntary could not be expected to exercise great care when forced to
vote.

b) The
effect of compulsory voting on rulers is extremely important. Where voting is
voluntary, rulers have a strong interest in discouraging those who might not
favour them. The largest number of those discouraged voters will be the
poorest, the least educated, ethnic or other minority groups who are socially
on the margin, the weakest in political competition, and those who see the
state not as an umpire and service provider, but as a parasitic oppressor.
Therefore, under a compulsory voting system (say Australia),
rulers have some incentive to look after everybody’s interests, even voters
who might not easily favour them. Under a voluntary voting system such as,
for example, the United
States of America, rulers have a strong
incentive to ignore, marginalize or disempower the
weakest and most alienated parts of the electorate. Ultimately this weakens
the cohesion of the state, and undermines its legitimacy. (Note that in
U.S.A. even the right to vote by all citizens was not achieved until 1965).

11. In
national democratic elections, do the majority of people usually choose
knowledgably, or are they usually deceived to some extent? The answer to the
first is no, and the second yes. Nevertheless, unless the betrayal has been
extreme and very obvious, few are willing to admit in public that they were
ignorant, or fools, so they tolerate the electoral
outcome, and continue to abide by the rule of law.

12. There
is a good argument that informed democratic choice is only possible where the
electorate knows and cares about the issues intimately, and has a personal
familiarity with those who are asking to represent them. This situation is
likely in a village, possible in a town, improbable in a city of any size,
and inconceivable in a nation state.

13. It
follows from #10 that large, modern states have an acute problem in framing
proper democratic choices, even when both the electorate and the governing
class wish for optimum results. Everyone has only 24 hours in a day. Each of
us has a useful understanding of only a small number of issues. The interests
of tens of millions of electors are diverse and often clash. The governing
policy choices required by those who are elected are frequently beyond their
own understanding or prediction. A functioning modern state itself is a huge,
dynamic mix of systems so complex that outcomes are frequently unpredictable.
Those who govern, whether as a dictator or an oligarchy, or an assembly of
elected representatives, are always riding many tigers.

14. Given
the impossibility of having a fully informed electorate in a modern nation
state, we have to think very carefully, and very adaptably about what can be expected of both rulers and
the ruled.

15. Those
who aspire to rule any complex an diverse modern
state must be modest and consultative in their endeavours. The lives of
millions of people cannot be credibly micro-managed. Their needs, hopes and
ideas cannot be directed beyond the broadest principles. Governments can
provide services. They can arbitrate, inform, educate, facilitate, protect individuals and groups where necessary (and that
does not mean so-called security to protect administrators from
embarrassment). Governments can optimize the opportunities for individuals to
develop their own best potentials. Governments in consultation with
stakeholders can decide the best allocation of resources to benefit the
widest number of people. What governments have no business in becoming are
fortresses to elevate and enrich a small ruling
elite. Their role is not to concentrate power by collecting secrets and
private information, but to disperse power by empowering the largest possible
number of citizens.

16. The
population which elects their rulers needs to be educated, constantly,
honestly, and without propaganda, about the nature of the social contract
they are entering into.

a) Voters
must understand clearly that, first of all, each time they vote they are
accepting in a broad way a shared and impartial rule of law. They are
entitled to object strongly when that agreement has been violated.

b) Voters
must understand clearly that a modern state is so complex that the decisions
of rulers will always be a compromise, and that the outcome of choices will
often be unpredictable. They are entitled to object strongly when the
decisions of rulers are obviously arbitrary or designed to unfairly
disadvantage one group at the destructive expense of other groups.

c) Voters
must understand that their knowledge of issues is probably limited in range
and depth. They must understand that this limitation is almost certainly true
of their elected representative also. They must therefore be prepared to
engage in a process of mutual education where issues arise. In electing a
representative, they are therefore making an estimate of that person’s good judgement,
goodwill and willingness to learn. Voters are entitled to object strongly if
their elected representative turns out to exhibit these qualities poorly, or
not at all.

d) Democracy
on a Global Scale

17. If the
democratic process has a problem when scaled to the size of a nation state,
it has an immense (some would say insoluble) problem when considered on the
scale of relationships between countries, or between countries and
multinational corporations (which may exceed the size and power of countries).

18. We are
all aware of the claimed democratic nature of the United Nations, and the League of Nations before it. Those with a knowledge of those organizations are also aware that
when it comes to significant decisions the United Nations has never been democratic,
and where the forms of democracy are followed on more trivial issues, the
implementation is frequently ineffective. The United Nations is a forum for
negotiation, by fair means or foul, and not infrequently by corruption or
coercion. Yet it appears to be better than having no forum at all. The same
can be said of many regional-interest international organizations, alliances,
and perhaps even for the European Parliament.

19. As the
human world becomes ever more tightly integrated, the idea of “one ring to
rule them all”, world government by a supreme tyranny, might seem ever more
likely. That certainly seems to be the tendency of various forces promoting a
“deep state” (e.g. think universal surveillance). Yet what is loosely called
“the middle class”, meaning educated, aware and ambitious populations, is
growing in almost every country. Historically, these have been the kinds of
people who have demanded, and eventually achieved some form of democratic
choice on the issues which affect their lives. I hope that they prevail in
the struggle ahead.

Bibliography

Note
that there are a vast number of organizations and documents purporting to
define, defend or explain the term “democracy”. Some make genuine attempts to
clarify the idea. However in an age of spin, words implying social power,
such as “democracy” and “freedom” are also often appropriated as a cover for
forces which most of us would interpret as their exact opposite. Black is
white. Furthermore, in various ideological contexts, some uses of “democracy”
are incomprehensible by the sense which others understand. For example, the
Chinese national Constitution (whose provisions are widely ignored in daily
practice as well as by many other Chinese laws and regulations) states that “China is a
democratic dictatorship”. Hmm. In the essay above, I have taken my own track.
The references below may convey a few extra perceptions.

May, Thor (2013) “Discussion Topics” – a blog set up to service a
bi-weekly live meetup for people in Brisbane, Australia
who like to talk over some of the Big Questions in life, including democracy.
@ http://discussiontopics.thormay.net/

National Endowment for
Democracy – “..aprivate, nonprofit foundation dedicated to the growth and
strengthening of democratic institutions around the world” (their own
description) - funded by the United States Congress. @ http://www.ned.org/

Professional bio: Thor May's PhD dissertation, Language
Tangle, dealt with language teaching productivity. Thor has been teaching
English to non-native speakers, training teachers and lecturing linguistics,
since 1976. This work has taken him to seven countries in Oceania and East Asia, mostly with tertiary students, but with a
couple of detours to teach secondary students and young children. He has
trained teachers in Australia,
Fiji and South Korea.
In an earlier life, prior to becoming a teacher, he had a decade of drifting
through unskilled jobs in Australia,
New Zealand and finally England (after backpacking across Asia in 1972).

All opinions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the
author, who has no aim to influence, proselytize or persuade others to a
point of view. He is pleased if his writing generates reflection in readers,
either for or against the sentiment of the argument.